Criminal justice system: "The law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies that work together to effect the apprehension, prosecution, and control of criminal offenders. They are charged with maintaining order, enforcing law, identifying transgressors, bringing the guilty to justice, and treating criminal behavior." - The essentials of criminal justice by Larry J. Siegel and John L. Worrall.

Okay now that we have those terms defined, I think now I can accurately show what my opinion is. Which is, I believe that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to bring justice for all, the victim and the offender. The only difference between the two is that one gets justly punished, and one gets justified. When a criminal commits a crime, they are violating a social code of conduct. Essentially, not only are they doing their victim a wrong, but society as a whole. Because crime disregards the values of society as a whole. Not just of one person. That is why the criminal justice system is here. Is to reset the balance that the criminal (by committing a crime) has upset. In that process of justice is dealt two ways, to society, and to the criminal. And going back to my definition of justice, the law is administrated and is established according to the rights and rules of a society. So the law is dealt both ways. To the offender and to the criminal. Except, one gets the sharp end of the stick, and one does not. This is the way the criminal justice system maintains the balance, and order. For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a criminal commits a crime, there must be an equal and proportionate punishment to maintain balance. So in the end (to hopefully wrap this up) there is a form of justice for the offender, and society as well, because balance is maintained. You cant choose one side or the other, because without one, the other would not exist. Again, like everything else I post, I hope this makes sense!

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

I think that to achieve justice for the offender is to justly punish them and to achieve justice for the victim is for the offender to pay the price for his crime. So I think that purpose of a criminal justice system is to justly punish the criminals and by doing so protect the victim and the general public.

"The purpose of the Criminal Justice System... is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent."

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

I would say the purpose of a criminal justice system is to achieve justice for the victim. First, however, what is justice?

Google says: "just behavior or treatment"

Now let's plug this into the question. It now says "is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve just behavior or treatment for the offender or for the victim?"

I believe we can now clearly see that justice is supposed to be for the victim, not for the offender (or at least not to the same extent). Why?

In our society we have certain standards, certain measures of right and wrong. Some people choose to break those standards and wrong other people. These are the criminals. They are people who have broken the law and thereby harmed somebody. The reason we have a criminal justice system in the first place is to punish these people for the wrong they committed. To show this, you can even look to the Biblical and philosophical purpose of government. Governments are meant to protect the citizens, and this includes punishing those who do wrong (see Romans 13).

So now we come to a choice. Our justice system can either use punishment, as intended, to give justice to the victims of a crime by keeping a person off the streets and shutting down their life. Or, it can treat criminals as victims and provide treatment, care, etc. to them. I believe the clear choice is justice for the victim. They didn't break the law and have no choice in the matter.

Now, I know that may seem harsh, and I know I'll probably be responded to quite a bit for this attitude Hear me out though. The question asks what the purpose of the system is: justice for the victim or offender. The primary responsibility of a justice system is to provide punishment, thereby giving justice to the victim. That isn't to the exclusion of helping the offender become a better person or giving them a humane prison stay. Those things are all great! However, the purpose of the system isn't primarily to provide those things. The purpose of the system is to punish the offender primarily. Any other treatment options are secondary, but important, after that.

So, quoting both of you would have taken forever, but this is in response to Jack and Sarah's posts. You guys had the same view so this is for both of you.

My question is: Is achieving justice "for" a person the same as giving that person a punishment?

That might be confusing so I'll try and clear it up. I like to think of justice as "just behavior or treatment." So, based on the wording of the question, we would say that we are giving just treatment to an offender. Following from that, then, we are making a judgement on what the goal of the system is: just treatment for the victim or just treatment for the offender.

Now, this choice carries an idea of conflict. The interpretation of the question you all presented, at least in my view, doesn't provide much conflict. When we justly punish an offender (the idea of "achieving justice" you proposed), aren't we also "achieving justice" for the victim as well?

This brings me back to the original question. When we achieve justice for a person, is that the same thing as simply punishing that person, or are there other components (like psychological evaluation, at home programs, parole, etc.) that are involved? And, if that's the case, I'm curious to hear what your thoughts would be on that view of the question.

I hope that was clear enough, I'll do my best to further clear it up if it wasn't

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

"The proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. A title given to certain judges, such as federal and state supreme court judges." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite my very retributive opinion, I believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve justice for the victim. The offender may or may not be sorry for what they have done, but it is always the victim who has to suffer the consequences of the offenders actions, regardless of the courts verdict. Lets look at two examples, First a rape case. The offender get caught, and is put on trial. Regardless of the outcome, the girl who gets raped has to live with that trauma for the rest of her life. Now she might be able to rest easier if she knows that man is going to be punished for what he did to her. Second, lets looks at the example of a robbery. The offender steals $3,000.00 from a small business. The small business owner catches the thief and turns him over to the cops, through the process of a trial the judge decides the offender should repay the $3,000.00 as well as compensation for the court fees the small business owner has had to pay, therefor achieving justice for the victim (the small business owner)

LivvyT wrote: "The proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. A title given to certain judges, such as federal and state supreme court judges." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite my very retributive opinion, I believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve justice for the victim. The offender may or may not be sorry for what they have done, but it is always the victim who has to suffer the consequences of the offenders actions, regardless of the courts verdict. Lets look at two examples, First a rape case. The offender get caught, and is put on trial. Regardless of the outcome, the girl who gets raped has to live with that trauma for the rest of her life. Now she might be able to rest easier if she knows that man is going to be punished for what he did to her. Second, lets looks at the example of a robbery. The offender steals $3,000.00 from a small business. The small business owner catches the thief and turns him over to the cops, through the process of a trial the judge decides the offender should repay the $3,000.00 as well as compensation for the court fees the small business owner has had to pay, therefor achieving justice for the victim (the small business owner)

Interesting opinion Olivia! And great examples! But I have one question, in your examples you talk about how when the criminal is punished, then the victim is justified. They receive some kind of return, whether it be satisfaction knowing that (to use your examples) the person who raped them is being punished or the $3,000 is returned to their business. So there is the justice for the victims like you said. But now to my question, can the victim be justified without justice being brought on the offender? Because essentially, what I find is that your examples line up with what my post was about, the balance of social order. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So in the end my question is, is justice being dealt to the offender and the victim mutually exclusive? Does one need the other to occur? Hope that makes sense! Let me know if is doesn't and I will try and clear it up.

TheBatman wrote:So, quoting both of you would have taken forever, but this is in response to Jack and Sarah's posts. You guys had the same view so this is for both of you.

My question is: Is achieving justice "for" a person the same as giving that person a punishment?

That might be confusing so I'll try and clear it up. I like to think of justice as "just behavior or treatment." So, based on the wording of the question, we would say that we are giving just treatment to an offender. Following from that, then, we are making a judgement on what the goal of the system is: just treatment for the victim or just treatment for the offender.

Now, this choice carries an idea of conflict. The interpretation of the question you all presented, at least in my view, doesn't provide much conflict. When we justly punish an offender (the idea of "achieving justice" you proposed), aren't we also "achieving justice" for the victim as well?

This brings me back to the original question. When we achieve justice for a person, is that the same thing as simply punishing that person, or are there other components (like psychological evaluation, at home programs, parole, etc.) that are involved? And, if that's the case, I'm curious to hear what your thoughts would be on that view of the question.

I hope that was clear enough, I'll do my best to further clear it up if it wasn't

Okay so I think I understand your question, so in answer to it I would say this. The point of the criminal justice system is to bring justice for all. The victim and the offender. I am sorry if my original post did not make that clear, I was worried about that But essentially my position is that by punishing the offender, you are achieving justice for them and the victim. Because you are restoring the balance that the criminal offset by breaking our social code. That's why the criminal justice system is here, to maintain social order and balance. When someone commits a crime, they have to be justly punished, that way the balance is restored. Because both are achieving justice. Like I said in my original post, justice have a sharp side and a soft side. Depending on your actions, you end up on one side or the other. Hope that answers your question!

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

"The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment. A case begins with law enforcement officials, who investigate a crime and gather evidence to identify and use against the presumed perpetrator. The case continues with the court system, which weighs the evidence to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the corrections system will use the means at their disposal, namely incarceration and probation, to punish and correct the behavior of the offender." - http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/how-does-the-criminal-justice-system-work.html

The criminal justice system is giving/achieving justice for the victim.

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

I would say the purpose of a criminal justice system is to provide justice for both the criminal and and the victim. For example, if someone steals something from you, the criminal justice system should make sure you get the stolen thing back, or at least some kind of compensation. Likewise, the thief will be treated justly by being punished in some way or another. Now, some criminal justice systems may focus more on justice for the offender, while others might focus more on justice for the victim. However, in general, the purpose of a criminal justice system is to provide justice for both sides of a crime, meaning the person who committed it, and the person whom the crime was committed against.

Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?

"The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment. A case begins with law enforcement officials, who investigate a crime and gather evidence to identify and use against the presumed perpetrator. The case continues with the court system, which weighs the evidence to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the corrections system will use the means at their disposal, namely incarceration and probation, to punish and correct the behavior of the offender." - http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/how-does-the-criminal-justice-system-work.html

The criminal justice system is giving/achieving justice for the victim.

Is it possible to achieve justice for the victim without achieving justice for the offender?

JACK ATTACK wrote:Okay so I think I understand your question, so in answer to it I would say this. The point of the criminal justice system is to bring justice for all. The victim and the offender. I am sorry if my original post did not make that clear, I was worried about that But essentially my position is that by punishing the offender, you are achieving justice for them and the victim. Because you are restoring the balance that the criminal offset by breaking our social code. That's why the criminal justice system is here, to maintain social order and balance. When someone commits a crime, they have to be justly punished, that way the balance is restored. Because both are achieving justice. Like I said in my original post, justice have a sharp side and a soft side. Depending on your actions, you end up on one side or the other. Hope that answers your question!

Ok, so you got the jist of my question...half and half That's probably my fault though.

Let me try to clarify a bit. Basically, I believe the question, when it says "achieve justice for an offender", is not talking about giving a just punishment to an offender.

This is because of a few things. First is the idea of conflict. When we talk about achieving justice for a victim, we are talking about the offender getting a punishment, which gives closure and protects from that offender. If we then say that achieving justice for an offender is giving them a just conflict, then there really wouldn't be a difference between the two options. It makes sense that there should be a difference for the two. This brings me to the second reason, which is basically the wording of the question. I believe it is talking about whether a justice system is more focused on the offender, or more focused on the victim. This is because of the wording "achieving justice for the offender", which, if you fill in the definition for justice, means "achieving just treatment for the offender." Now, I would agree with your view if the question said "giving justice TO an offender", but I don't think that's what the intent was. This is the third reason. Based on the wording, and context, of the quote (along with knowing what was in my head when I asked it in class ), I would say that we're talking about whether a justice system focuses more on the offender and their needs vs. the victim and their needs. Hope that clears it up.

In light of that, I would ask 1) Whether you agree and 2) How that would affect your view

Also, I'd like to key in both Elijah and Sarah on this, as you guys said relatively the same thing. Thanks for hearing me out!

p.s. Don't worry, I'll be gone for two weeks after tomorrow and you won't have to hear from me the whole time

JACK ATTACK wrote:Okay so I think I understand your question, so in answer to it I would say this. The point of the criminal justice system is to bring justice for all. The victim and the offender. I am sorry if my original post did not make that clear, I was worried about that But essentially my position is that by punishing the offender, you are achieving justice for them and the victim. Because you are restoring the balance that the criminal offset by breaking our social code. That's why the criminal justice system is here, to maintain social order and balance. When someone commits a crime, they have to be justly punished, that way the balance is restored. Because both are achieving justice. Like I said in my original post, justice have a sharp side and a soft side. Depending on your actions, you end up on one side or the other. Hope that answers your question!

Ok, so you got the jist of my question...half and half That's probably my fault though.

Let me try to clarify a bit. Basically, I believe the question, when it says "achieve justice for an offender", is not talking about giving a just punishment to an offender.

This is because of a few things. First is the idea of conflict. When we talk about achieving justice for a victim, we are talking about the offender getting a punishment, which gives closure and protects from that offender. If we then say that achieving justice for an offender is giving them a just conflict, then there really wouldn't be a difference between the two options. It makes sense that there should be a difference for the two. This brings me to the second reason, which is basically the wording of the question. I believe it is talking about whether a justice system is more focused on the offender, or more focused on the victim. This is because of the wording "achieving justice for the offender", which, if you fill in the definition for justice, means "achieving just treatment for the offender." Now, I would agree with your view if the question said "giving justice TO an offender", but I don't think that's what the intent was. This is the third reason. Based on the wording, and context, of the quote (along with knowing what was in my head when I asked it in class ), I would say that we're talking about whether a justice system focuses more on the offender and their needs vs. the victim and their needs. Hope that clears it up.

In light of that, I would ask 1) Whether you agree and 2) How that would affect your view

Also, I'd like to key in both Elijah and Sarah on this, as you guys said relatively the same thing. Thanks for hearing me out!

p.s. Don't worry, I'll be gone for two weeks after tomorrow and you won't have to hear from me the whole time

Before I can really answer this question, I'd have to know what your definition of achieving justice for an offender would be...

Also, if we take the question to mean whether the system is more focused on the offender or the victim, I would say that it is more focused on the offender. From what I know, the only thing the victim would do with the criminal justice system is to be a witness, and have stolen goods returned...

Before I can really answer this question, I'd have to know what your definition of achieving justice for an offender would be...

Also, if we take the question to mean whether the system is more focused on the offender or the victim, I would say that it is more focused on the offender. From what I know, the only thing the victim would do with the criminal justice system is to be a witness, and have stolen goods returned...[/quote]As far as the definition goes, is direct you to my original post. It's explained in detail there.

In an effort to be clear I might have oversimplified what I was saying. I think, by focused, we mean focused on achieving justice. Whether this focus is on the victim, by providing fair punishment to the offender, or on the offender, by trying to make them a better person and treating them as the most important goal.

TheBatman wrote: Let me try to clarify a bit. Basically, I believe the question, when it says "achieve justice for an offender", is not talking about giving a just punishment to an offender. This is because of a few things. First is the idea of conflict. When we talk about achieving justice for a victim, we are talking about the offender getting a punishment, which gives closure and protects from that offender. If we then say that achieving justice for an offender is giving them a just conflict, then there really wouldn't be a difference between the two options. It makes sense that there should be a difference for the two. This brings me to the second reason, which is basically the wording of the question. I believe it is talking about whether a justice system is more focused on the offender, or more focused on the victim. This is because of the wording "achieving justice for the offender", which, if you fill in the definition for justice, means "achieving just treatment for the offender." Now, I would agree with your view if the question said "giving justice TO an offender", but I don't think that's what the intent was. This is the third reason. Based on the wording, and context, of the quote (along with knowing what was in my head when I asked it in class ), I would say that we're talking about whether a justice system focuses more on the offender and their needs vs. the victim and their needs. Hope that clears it up. In light of that, I would ask 1) Whether you agree and 2) How that would affect your view Also, I'd like to key in both Elijah and Sarah on this, as you guys said relatively the same thing. Thanks for hearing me out! p.s. Don't worry, I'll be gone for two weeks after tomorrow and you won't have to hear from me the whole time

Okay! I see what you are saying now! And you are right, I did get it half and half So in answer to your question, I would say that my position does not change. I think by punishing the offender, you are achieving justice "for" them. Now it does not exactly make sense at first so let me explain. I believe that the purpose of criminal justice system is to bring justice to all. The offender and the victim. I think the way it works is when a criminal breaks our social laws, they throw off the balance that was previously there. So in order to restore that balance, the criminal justice system has to punish them. That way the victim and the offender are both achieving justice. Now I know I have said this before. But here is where I clarify. My opinion all depends on the actions of individuals. Which kind of justice you receive depends solely Whether you are the one who breaks the social laws, or one who obeys them. A criminals actions determine what kind of justice they receive. One that is harsh. Meaning punishment. Lets quickly go back to my definition of justice.

So justice like I said in my original post justice is like a stick with a sharp end and a blunt end. You violate the social code, you get the sharp end. It is still achieving justice "for" you, but had a painful twist. Just like when we punish offenders and maintain social order we are achieving justice "for" them as well. So in the end I would answer your question with this, justice goes both ways, it had a painful side, and a soft side. Depending on your actions, you choose which side is for you. I hope that answered your question!

Before I can really answer this question, I'd have to know what your definition of achieving justice for an offender would be...

Also, if we take the question to mean whether the system is more focused on the offender or the victim, I would say that it is more focused on the offender. From what I know, the only thing the victim would do with the criminal justice system is to be a witness, and have stolen goods returned...

As far as the definition goes, is direct you to my original post. It's explained in detail there.

In an effort to be clear I might have oversimplified what I was saying. I think, by focused, we mean focused on achieving justice. Whether this focus is on the victim, by providing fair punishment to the offender, or on the offender, by trying to make them a better person and treating them as the most important goal.

I think that's a little bit clearer, let me know if it makes sense

That's a little clearer. I'm still a little confused on how you'd define achieving justice for an offender... In your first post you defined justice as "just behavior or treatment." However, in this post, you said "Whether this focus is on the victim, by providing fair punishment to the offender, or on the offender, by trying to make them a better person and treating them as the most important goal." Looking at this sentence, it looks like you would define justice for the offender as making them a better person, however, I don't see that in your definition of justice... You also said that keeping the focus on the victim would be providing fair punishment to the offender. Wouldn't that basically be giving the offender just treatment?

LivvyT wrote: "The proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. A title given to certain judges, such as federal and state supreme court judges." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite my very retributive opinion, I believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve justice for the victim. The offender may or may not be sorry for what they have done, but it is always the victim who has to suffer the consequences of the offenders actions, regardless of the courts verdict. Lets look at two examples, First a rape case. The offender get caught, and is put on trial. Regardless of the outcome, the girl who gets raped has to live with that trauma for the rest of her life. Now she might be able to rest easier if she knows that man is going to be punished for what he did to her. Second, lets looks at the example of a robbery. The offender steals $3,000.00 from a small business. The small business owner catches the thief and turns him over to the cops, through the process of a trial the judge decides the offender should repay the $3,000.00 as well as compensation for the court fees the small business owner has had to pay, therefor achieving justice for the victim (the small business owner)

Interesting opinion Olivia! And great examples! But I have one question, in your examples you talk about how when the criminal is punished, then the victim is justified. They receive some kind of return, whether it be satisfaction knowing that (to use your examples) the person who raped them is being punished or the $3,000 is returned to their business. So there is the justice for the victims like you said. But now to my question, can the victim be justified without justice being brought on the offender? Because essentially, what I find is that your examples line up with what my post was about, the balance of social order. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So in the end my question is, is justice being dealt to the offender and the victim mutually exclusive? Does one need the other to occur? Hope that makes sense! Let me know if is doesn't and I will try and clear it up.

Well Jack now that i'm thinking about it, I would say no, They are not mutually exclusive. I think one must happen in order for the other to occur, like you stated (i think). I do not think it probable (I say probable bc it most certainly is possible) for a rape victim to live the rest of their lives and pretend they were never harmed. So in the case that the offended is never bought to justice and continued to run free, I think the victim may live the rest of their lives without aver achieving justice. Does this make sense???

LivvyT wrote: Well Jack now that i'm thinking about it, I would say no, They are not mutually exclusive. I think one must happen in order for the other to occur, like you stated (i think). I do not think it probable (I say probable bc it most certainly is possible) for a rape victim to live the rest of their lives and pretend they were never harmed. So in the case that the offended is never bought to justice and continued to run free, I think the victim may live the rest of their lives without aver achieving justice. Does this make sense??? -Liv

Good to see I have converted you Olivia! And yes it does make sense! Speaking of which, it is exactly my opinion. If the offender is never captured, then the criminal justice system is not achieving justice for either of them. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive. In order for the balance to be restored and justice to be served ( ) There needs to be action on both sides. Without one, they other cannot occur. Anyways, thanks for responding!

i would say for the offender. Because sometime people (such as you me, or ordinary citizens) don't always agree with the punishment given to the criminal. Also people tend to get justice and revenge confused and i think the justice system prevents that from happening, weather or not the punishment is fair or not. Revenge is not the answer. Revenge is: the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. and justice is: just behavior or treatment. you see the difference? Now you could go into the most obvious question; who determines what is just and what is unjust. but that wasn't the question, so imma leave at that ^^^

I would like to start by defining the three major terms in this question that has been posed to us. Justice - Just behavior or treatment. Offender - A person who commits an illegal act. And finally Victim - A person Harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. So using these definitions lets create a scenario which will help illustrates how this may look. A man walks into the Bank Of America, armed and ready. He's got to AK 47's in his hands, and he is wrapped in a bomb, which he is willing to let off at any moment. The Teller has already set off the panic button and the police will be arriving in 15 minutes time. The man who has now seized the entirety of the banks employers, and customers is rushing to get as much money into the bag as he can before he has to leave, for fear of being caught by the police. He has managed to fill the bag with 20,000$ in cash. Though it is not much, for robbing a bank, he is content and leaves the bank in just enough time to escape the law. He quickly decides to spend the money for fear of being tracked down, after all he did not conceal his identity and was caught by multiple security cameras. To no avail, our criminal has been tracked down and caught. He is arrested and soon tried for a court hearing. This is where the fun begins. Due to the overflow of evidence and witnesses from the crime scene our criminal is labeled guilty. He is sentenced to forty years in jail, no chance of parole. So our criminal has received justice. He has received his "treatment" for his crime. But what about our victim, or victims? In this case he did not steal from just one person but possibly from many. The 20,000$ had been spent. There is no getting this back. Sure the criminal is off the streets. But the victim still suffers the emotional trauma of it all. He/She can and will never get that day back. Its gone forever, and the feeling that you could loose your life at any moment just by looking at the man wrong is stuck with you forever. It keeps you up at night. He, the criminal is the main character in your dreams, haunting you. What justice do you the victim receive? Our Criminal Justice System I feel brings justice to the offender and the offender only. The victim can't ever get back the day that they had wrong done to them. They are stuck with the mistake of the offender.

The purpose of the system is to punish the offender primarily. Any other treatment options are secondary, but important, after that.

Thus, the first goal of the system has to be punishing wrong.

Well I see what have to say as far as bringing justice to the victim. But "locking up" the offender will only do so much. Think about the emotional response crimes leave on the victim. Take rape for example. A man rapes a women, the man is caught and sentenced to 25 years. Okay great! He's off the streets for 25 years, good job Judge Judy . But knowing your offender is "locked up" only eases the pain slightly, and for a small period of time. That experience is left in your mind forever. You can never forget what was done to you. It keeps you up at night, steals your thoughts throughout the day. You are never the same again. Yes of course the saving grace of God brings you peace and understanding, and ultimately helps you to forgive, but what about those who do not know God? So you spend the next 25 years thinking, and remembering all that has been done to you. Then you receive a text from a close friend saying your offender gets released Friday. You are now living in constant fear that this man will come back and do it again. So now Batman, do you believe that this is truly justice?

"Is the purpose of a criminal justice system to achieve justice for the offender or for the victim?"

I like to think of the criminal justice system as a hospital for a bunch of immoral people who need healing. I believe that the purpose of a criminal justice system is to not only to achieve justice for an offender, but takes that criminal and fixes their immoral mindset by putting them in a moral one. The laws by which we know today are based off of Gods laws, and when anyone is to go against the laws today, they are ultimately going against God. Now we all know that in life and after death, Gods justice rules, but as far as whether the criminal justice system gives justice for the offender, I would say that it is supposed to be just in giving that criminal the discipline he needs for his or her actions and a second chance, (if not too serious a crime). Though they may not get a second chance from the law we have today for say a murderer, God definitely is the giver of second chances and the giver of forgiveness. Some murderers have even accepted Christ and repented their sins just before they were given the death penalty. Now we don't know for sure whether or not it was legit, but God certainly knows the truth of their sincerity.

Isaiah 61:8 says, "For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them."

By this verse we can know that justice is what ultimately comes from God, and is part of who He is. We can do only so much in this world to help the immoral criminals (with imprisonment). It is God who works in the hearts and minds of man, and it is God who rules out justice, forgiveness, and mercy.

The purpose of the system is to punish the offender primarily. Any other treatment options are secondary, but important, after that.

Thus, the first goal of the system has to be punishing wrong.

Yes of course the saving grace of God brings you peace and understanding, and ultimately helps you to forgive, but what about those who do not know God? So you spend the next 25 years thinking, and remembering all that has been done to you. Then you receive a text from a close friend saying your offender gets released Friday. You are now living in constant fear that this man will come back and do it again. So now Batman, do you believe that this is truly justice?

Hi Bellea! You have an interesting point here. My question for you is, "Do you believe that those who don't know God can find good even in the bad? Though they may not see it as 'even so God is good', couldn't they still be optimistic about their scenario?" Also, "do we always completely understand why God allows these things to happen to us?" Normally if that offender was released, whether you were Christian or not, your scared, because your afraid that this man might try to do the same thing again to you or to someone else, but remember, this guy has been in prison for 25 yrs. Do you think that there was some sort of counseling for this man? Do you believe that his imprisonment helped improve his morals for the better? And should that offender be given a second chance? Kids are always given second chances when they do stupid things like stealing cookies out the pantry, so why can't that be given to a person in a more intense scenario? Though it would be much easier to forgive and extend mercy to the offender because you know God, are you saying it would be impossible for a non believer to do the same?